Neutral advice from the IPCC?
By Richard Ingham (AFP) – 3 hours ago
PARIS — A leaden cloak of responsibility lies on the shoulders of UN scientists as they put the final touches to the first volume of a massive report that will give the world the most detailed picture yet of climate change.
Due to be unveiled in Stockholm on September 27, the document will be scrutinised word by word by green groups, fossil-fuel lobbies and governments to see if it will yank climate change out of prolonged political limbo.
The report will kick off the fifth assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an expert body set up in 1988 to provide neutral advice on global warming and its impacts. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hHmcL4DZjT-PZWhEHO3VDb5gjsrA?docId=CNG.db54bf0fa84dd93ad7cf71578fe1dcef.681
=================================================================
Regarding your “Trenberth’s IPCC claim” post, you may like to mention Green & Armstrong (2007) (available here) in which we addressed Trenberth’s IPCC-don’t-forecast line in some detail. As far as I’m aware, our subsequent paper (Green, Armstrong, & Soon 2009, here) provides the *only* forecast of global mean temperatures over the 21st Century. That is, we state that we are making a forecast (not a scenario or projection), the forecast is stated clearly (annual average temperatures will be within 0.5 C of the 2008 figure), and is unconditional (no matter what happens to CO2 emissions, etc). Unlike Trenberth et al., who try to have it both ways by calling for “action” but aren’t prepared to say they are making forecasts, we stand by our forecast and the clear implication that government climate policies are neither needed nor desirable.
Cheers, Dr Kesten C Green
===================================================================
Park Service personnel recently discovered evidence of a buried forest dating back to at least 1170 AD high in the Forelands near the current glacier’s edge…Exit Glacier advanced from the Harding Icefield during the Little Ice Age, burying this existing forest and advancing to a maximum marked by the terminal moraine dated to 1815…
http://www.nps.gov/kefj/naturescience/upload/The%20Retreat%20of%20Exit%20Glacier.pdf
===================================================================
It’s baaaaaaack….
Eastern US water supplies threatened by a legacy of acid rain
Noted ecologist Gene Likens, founding director of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and a co-discoverer of acid rain, was among the study’s authors. The extent of alkalinity change in streams and rivers exceeded his expectations: “This is another example of the widespread impact humans are having on natural systems. Policymakers and the public think that the acid rain problem has gone away, but it has not.”
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-08/cioe-euw082613.php
====================================================================
Dr. Roy Spencer continues his greenhouse experiments:
In Part I of this series, I mentioned how Wood’s (1909) “greenhouse box” experiment, which he claimed suggested that a real greenhouse did not operate through “trapping” of infrared radiation, was probably not described well enough to conclude anything of substance. I provided Wood’s original published “Note”, which was only a few paragraphs, and in which he admitted that he covered the issue in only cursory detail.
Wood’s experiment was not described well enough to replicate. We have no idea how much sunlight was passed through his plate of rock salt-covered box versus the glass-covered box. We also don’t know exactly how he placed another glass window over the rock salt window, which if it was very close at all, invalidated the whole experiment.
====================================================================
New witch hunt: “Environmental Campaign Suggests Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers”
Environmental Campaign Suggests Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers
New York agency Barton F. Graf has turned its roguish attention to the issue of climate change, and is helping 350 Action, a climate change activist group, with the amusing video below. According to the YouTube description: “Since 1954, the World Meteorological Organization has been naming extreme storms after people. But we propose a new naming system. One that names extreme storms caused by climate change, after the policy makers who deny climate change and obstruct climate policy. If you agree, sign the petition at climatenamechange.org.” The snarky tone preaches to the choir, but it’s hard to resist lines like, “If you value your life, please seek shelter from Michele Bachmann.”
=================================================================
Satellite temps flat for 200 months now
by Werner Brozek
If the global warming era started in June 1988 with Jim Hansen’s drama-queen congressional testimony, then atmospheric temps have been flat 67% of the time since.
BUT,But but, but…. green groups = fossil-fuel lobbies = governments.
So where are the groups OPPOSED to the CO2 causes climate conjecture?
Re “Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers”
Should we then name tropical storms that fail to become hurricanse after Climate-change Alarmists?
Or When when hurricanes peter out to tropical storms?
Would either have any discernable significance?
The Eastern USA is full of limestone which neutralizes acidic water(That is why the water is ‘Hard’) I have been in caves from Maine to Florida. If there is a change in alkalinity it is most likely do to the AMOUNT of rainfall since rain water absorbs CO2. Also we have cleaned up the SO2 problem.
“…Policymakers and the public think that the acid rain problem has gone away, but it has not.”
Of course not. They might need it.
“PARIS — A leaden cloak of responsibility lies on the shoulders of UN scientists”
Yep. The responsibility to maintain the apocalyptic propaganda campaign the UN uses to increase its control.
Nice that they call the NGO show “scientists”. Should help with deluding the public.
Wow. Read the comments on the 350 story. CB is a climate fundamentalist. No heresy allowed!
Well if they want to name Vicious storms after deniers I suggest you put your name forward,
“Watt Hurricane” not only has a nice ring to it but a grain of truth as well..
CB appears to believe that co2 actually melts ice! Truly delusional.
The named storm idea would be both hilarious and awesome while utterly backfiring, rewarding with free fame & bonus extra publicity … not that it’ll really happen.
One major error in Richard Ingams (AFP) report – describing the IPCC as a ‘neutral’ body set up to report on climate change !!!! The day they IPCC produce an objective report on climate is the day I will make sure I carry an umbrella to protect me from the waste products from flying pigs.
This is so simple, don’t like CO2 and Coal? Turn your lights off. Don’t use any energy at all, not even energy produced by some green device, save that for someone else. Step up and turn it off!!! Be somebody! LOL Good Luck with that. Stupid is as stupid does.
sunderlandsteve says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:53 pm
“CB appears to believe that co2 actually melts ice! Truly delusional.”
He/she/it has obviously never bothered to look at actual global sea ice.
From cultural marxism to scientific marxism.
(After the victim groups designated by Marcuse failed to destroy capitalism, maybe his successors now try with scientists.)
One can only hope that the ad campaign is used, and leads to an edifying number of civil lawsuits charging defamation.
On the other hand, turn-about being fair play and all, maybe we can start calling particularly stupid statements uttered by alarmist stalwarts as making a graf (gaff). As in, Bill MacKibble made a foolish graf today when he claimed that sea level rise will drown the Huffington Post by next week.
An especially stupid graf can include the convenient initials of Barton F., as in, Bill MacKibble pulled a BFGraf (big farking graf) today, when he decried the Amazon rain forest as the largest naturally occurring carbon pollution site in the world, advising that it be removed and fired into the sun.‘
Hurricane Roy doesn’t sound very menacing to me. But I would be honored nonetheless.
It would be an honor to be a named storm. I would be remembered for years, especialy if it was one of the Category 6 storms 😉
Meanwhile the alarmists will continue to slip into obscurity as their ever more discredited theories are rejected.
Who is CB?
They are not a neutral body. Their mission statement reads——-“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
How can they be neutral when they are only to assess “human-induced climate change”.
Disgusting scam.
Name the hurricanes for skeptics, bunch of right-wingers anyway, right?
Hurricane Alexander (Cockburn).
Hurricane Buzz (Aldrin).
Hurricane David (Bellamy).
Hurricane Freeman (Dyson).
Hurricane Fritz (Vahrenholt).
Hurricane Michael (Crichton).
Hurricane Penn (Jillette).
Hurricane Reid (Bryson).
Watts got a mention in “Best of the Web” in the WSJ today.
and links to the May 15, 2012 Global warming – splodeified
David L. Hagen says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Re “Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers”
Should we then name tropical storms that fail to become hurricanes after Climate-change Alarmists?
Or When when hurricanes peter out to tropical storms?
=====
Hurricane Peter-out Gleick? I like the sound of that.
Ken R. says:
August 26, 2013 at 3:40 pm
> It would be an honor to be a named storm. I would be remembered for years, especially if it was one of the Category 6 storms 😉
Let’s save that for Hurricane Gore.
I categorically deny that the ‘El Reno’ killer Oklahoma tornado was named after me.
About the Hurricane naming thing, on reflection I think this could backfire on them very badly. A Hurricane Monkton, McKintire or Watts would put those names in front of millions of sheeple who are currently oblivious to the climate debate. Skeptics win every argument but are losing the war because the mainstream media ignores us to death. In that situation there is really no such thing as bad publicity.
I don’t think I’d worry too much about hurricane names. I mean, it’s not like we’re using them up too quickly any more, and any storms that do get named are…well…does anyone remember tropical
stormdepression Fernand? Dorian? Chantal? Barry? Andrea?More here…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/slowest-start-to-a-hurricane-season-on-record/
I’m all for a hurricane named after Lindzen. I think a lot of people would get a kick out of hurricane Dick. The late night comedians would love it.
CB is a commenter on the named storms article.
Off topic, but do you have a spot here to put “Examples of Idiocy at http://www.weather.com“?
This text accompanied a video of a large wave coming ashore:
“30 Injured by Giant Waves: August 24, 2013 – A huge tidal wave in China’s eastern Zhejiang Province sent people running, leaving at least 30 injured. It was caused by Typhoon Trami.”
Now, last I checked, a “tidal wave” (otherwise known as a “tsunami”) is not caused by a hurricane/cyclone/typhoon, but by seismic activity, landslides, and meteor/comet impacts. So, there’s only one logical conclusion here if hurricanes are now strong enough to cause seismic activity, landslides, and meteor/comet impacts. And that, of course is…..
“It’s worse than we thought.”
(sarc; but it just shows how far the Weather Channel has fallen)
@Patrick Guinness Frank: What is a ‘graf’? If you mean goofy mistake, the word is ‘gaffe’:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaffe
New witch hunt: “Environmental Campaign Suggests Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers”
And we can now name all of the blizzards using their names. How childish can you get! And they call themselves “scientists” or followers of sceince… NOT!
I especially liked the table on the last page of the Exit Glacier article showing two orders of magnitude in the range of the annual rate of retreat.
Well I’m OK with that; they can name one of those terror storms after me; provided of course, they do so while it is still just off the Africa coast, so I can watch the whole thing create mayhem, from start to finish.
I wouldn’t want one that went flat before making landfall, like Sandy did. I’d be embarrassed, if I was Sandy.
Roy Spencer says:
August 26, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Hurricane Roy doesn’t sound very menacing to me. But I would be honored nonetheless.
——————————————————
Too late, the internet already produced it some how. Go figure !
It is just too easy to look stuff up with voice commands on a mobile device now days. 😉
http://simcityhurricanes.wikia.com/wiki/Hurricane_Roy
Go ahead, name a hurricane after Sen. Jim Inhofe! I know Jim, he’d like it!
A money quote from Dr. Green’s paper, above:
What’s old (2007) is new again:
George says:
August 26, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Wow. Read the comments on the 350 story. CB is a climate fundamentalist. No heresy allowed!
———————————————
CB’s a maroon.
cn
Duh-duh dum. Did you read the post? I thought not. ‘Graf’ is the name of the ‘dong who produced the 350 video.
I cannot resist and neither will be the “anointed one”, no matter where the alphabetical order would be , the minute he would find out how to name the next Hurricane (Teleprompter needed) , Cyclone, Typhoon, etc. “he from the heaven” would call the storm “Michelle “, LOL, BTW (It would to me be a depression or a record breaking low)
Great HotSheet!
The dude that wrote the hyperbole from Paris was the best. That kid worked harrrrrrrd on that tale!
The year 2007 claim of Green and Armstrong errs in its opposition to the year 2007 claim of Trenberth. Trenberth claims that the IPCC climate models do not “predict.” According to Trenberth, These models “project.” ( http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html ).
A model that predicts conveys information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decision. A model that projects conveys no such information. Thus, the IPCC climate models are useless for the purpose of making policy.
Roy Spencer says:
August 26, 2013 at 3:25 pm
I claim dibs on Cyclone Willis …
w.
Hmmmn.
Willy cyclone, or won’t he cyclone?
Regardless, they will always face Gail force winds …
Hurricane Choey? No one would believe it. Oh well.
@Brian H: Oops! A pun slips me by…
Now that’s going to put them off if you lot get excited about storms being named after you. It could be like a lottery, “And the winner is…” 🙂
Yes the willy willy storm sounds good. Wait a minute a willy-willy is what the aussies call a tiny dust tornado in the outback.Too bad! Its pretty much inconsequential.
Re: Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers
Using IPCC scale of confidence levels for policy makers, there is low confidence (minimal concensus or agreement regardless of evidence) in naming storms after climate-deniers. Although on the bright side, it is virtually certain (full agreement or concensus (97%?) and robust or limited evidence) that hotspots would be named after climate-alarmists; example, “Trenberth’s missing hotspot”. /sarc
Extracts [my bolds] supporting this sarc idea from a 2012 IPCC special report brochure with a long-winded name. Explanations of confidence scale is detailed at the end of the brochure.
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf
On Climate Extremes and Impacts
On Human Impacts and Disaster Losses[my comment: really? given what they said above]
We need to understand the confidence in climate projections. From same report: Climate Extremes and Impacts
And again we need to clarify what a climate projection is. From IPCC AR4 glossary:
BTW, What is the WMO definition of a vicious storm?
Geomagnetic guru
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Cheers back to Dr Kesten C Green. Fascinating and timely, especially in light of recent comments by some eminent sceptics who also called the models useless, and for pretty much the same reasons!
As we say down here in the Antipodes, “Grouse!”
Cheers,
Coops
Its simple no AGW , no IPCC , now does anyone want to bet want the ‘report ‘ will say ?
New witch hunt: “Environmental Campaign Suggests Naming Vicious Storms After Climate-Change Deniers”
Ooh ooh , please can I have one? Only trouble is, at current rate I’ll never get to see it.
Are these researchers serious? “Over the past 25 to 60 years, two-thirds (rivers) have become significantly more alkaline.” and, “”Acid rain has led to increased outputs of alkalinity from watersheds and contributed to long-term, increasing trends in our rivers…”
So now Acid content of rain causes the pH of runoff to go up? According to these researchers Yes!
I think they must have walked out during their first lecture in freshman Inorganic Chemistry, and never returned. They are fundamentally lacking in their understanding of acid base chemistry.
Personally, I think “Typhoon Willis” sounds like a most menacing storm (plus you’ve got the legendary fighter jet to consider).
Also– ~Dr. Spencer–Perhaps it’s time to pull out that unforgettable Starbucks ad (fwd to 0:52 in vid): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow6lg2tAqsY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOw6lg2tAqsY
🙂
Especially if you spelled the names properly.
What exactly is that “massive” report being written on. Oh – very definately “green” paper. How many revisions will be done to it so that each and every word is exactly right. Then more “green” paper to be used. And even it its “recycled” paper, does that mean that no energy was used to produce stuff to be written upon? Are all the delegates tele-conferencing into the conference? Or are they rowing to Stockholm? The constant hypocrisy is numbing.
====================================================================
Dissolve a spoonful of baking soda in a glass of water.
You’ve just “dramatically” increased its alkalinity without increasing its hardness.
There’s a lot these guys aren’t saying. Perhaps they are just trying to be “most alarming”.
I can hear The Weather Channel now:
“The following report on Snowstorm Willis is brought to by the good folks at wattsupwiththat.com.”
Maybe they should sell naming rights for storms like they do for sports stadiums? The proceeds could go to paying back the taxpayers for man-made disasters like Solyndra or setting up aviaries for all those poor little orphaned birds near wind turbines.
@Hurricane Roy
Too late. Been there , done that. TS Roy did considerable damage to Kwajalien Island when I was there in 1987
I remember when “acid rain” was the eco-bete-noir of the 1970s and 80s. I also remember there was a very expensive and conclusive study funded by Congress to get to the bottom of the problem. Turned out there was no problem with the rain (fingers were pointing toward sulfur dioxide emissions from coal-burning powerplants causing sulfurous acid formation). There was only rain runoff from acidic coniferous forest duff. (Are coniferous trees acidic? My lawn seems to think so.) Nobody recommended wiping out all coniferous trees. As a result, the subject has been dead for nearly 30 years. Now, those who don’t remember (and couldn’t care less) are raising the same false alarm.
=========================================================================
That jogged my memory. I remember when acid rain was competing with the ozone “hole” as the leading contender as the latest way Man was going upset Ma’ Nature.
One of the proposed treatments to offset the effects was to add alkalinity in the form of waste lime sludge to effected streams.
Perhaps the forest from before 1170 emerging from the Forelands near the current Exit glacier’s edge should be named Mann’s Forest; after the man that seems to deny the medieval warm period..
WIll the IPCC paint themselves into a corner with no exit should cooling occur ?
Or will they carefully word for themselves an exit strategy within the no doubt voluminous tome.
Or are they basically too stupid.
Oh just go with it. We’ll see if in the end we can get all hurricanes categorized properly – in Watts, of course.